BC 2005 03 14 WORK SESSION - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 14, 2005 (Work Session) Page 103 By consensus, the Board agreed to place the request for disposition of property owned by the Kannapolis City Board of Education on the March 21st Agenda as a Consent item. Status of the Appeal - Orleans Homebuilders Mr. Day reported that the Cabarrus County Planning and Zoning Commission had denied a subdivision request at its last meeting based on the adequate public facilities requirements. Jonathan Marshall, Commerce Director, stated an appeal is expected from Orleans Homebuilders but has not yet been received. He re:viewed the appeal process and stated the Board would be asked to decide the case based on the same information the Planning and Zoning Commission heard. Mr. Marshall reported the decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission was based primarily on a letter from County School officials that said, "the amount of growth that this subdivision and others in the area would produce were beyond what was included in the IS-year plan and they could not handle the additional studentsu. There was discussion as to how the practice of entering into a consent agreement with developers to advance school adequacy had evolved over the past several years. The Board also discussed the difference in the wording of previous school adequacy letters compared to the school adequacy letter for the subdivision that was denied. Mr. Day stated the Planning and Zoning Commission had deviated from its past practice of approving a subdivision application contingent upon the Board of Commissioners making a decision on whether it would allow the advancement of school adequacy. After discussion, Board members requested copies of the school adequacy letters for previously approved subdivisions. Also, staff will provide information about the number of building permits issued and the number of lots approved since December 2004. Restructuring of the Planning and Zoning Commission vice Chairman Carruth proposed the restructuring of the Planning and Zoning Commission with the members changed from township representation to district representation based on established planning areas of the county. Membership would include a representative from each of the planning areas, two at-large members and three alternates; A preference would be given for individuals with expertise in land use processes such as home-owner organization officers, engineers, surveyors, architects, developmental financing, real estate and other positions that demonstrate involvement in land-use pl~nning. Terms would be for three years with appointments made on a staggered basis. Also, current Planning and Zoning Commission members would be eligible to re-apply for appointment. After discussion regarding the need for restructuring the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board by consensus agreed to place the proposed restructuring on the March 21st Agenda as a New Business item. Information will be provided as to the areas in which current Planning and Zoning Commission members reside and their area(s) of expertise. Budget Amendment - Legal Department Pam Dubois, Deputy County Manager, reported a separate budget had been established for the Legal Department as previously requested by the Board. She reviewed a budget amendment needed to cover Legal expenses for the remainder of FY 2005. The budget amendment totaled $178,000.00, including an additional $175,000.00 for Legal Fees and $3,000.00 for Dues/Subscriptions. The legal fees were as follows: Adams, Hendon Carson & Crow - $75,785.55 (water litigation); Hartsell & Williams - $84,609.42; Kennedy & Covington - $492.45; Potter & Company $325.00 and Vonda Allen/Reed & Associates $127.80. The Board asked Ms. Dubois to prepare a breakdown of FY 2005 legal expenses incurred before and after December 20, 2004. By consensus, {'he Board agreed to place the budget amendment for the Legal Department on the March 21st Agenda as a New Business item. FY 2005-06 Budget Update Pam Dubois, Deputy County Manager, presented a number of issues to be addressed during the FY 2006 budget process. In light of the negative